Maximizing Protection Over Sensitive Cyber Forensic Reports in Light of Recent Disclosure Orders
This article provides an overview of the recent case law and some approaches companies might take to maximize the protection of cyber reports from third-party disclosure.
March 22, 2021 at 11:45 AM
8 minute read
As corporate cybersecurity incidents become increasingly widespread, many companies find themselves engaging external computer forensics consultants for technical, investigative, and remedial assistance in responding to data breaches. As part of these engagements, cyber consultants sometimes prepare interim and final material detailing their findings, including points of vulnerability and weaknesses that may have contributed to the incident. Disclosure of the sensitive information in these reports can have adverse consequences, especially to the extent that the reports give adversaries a potential roadmap of deficiencies that can be leveraged in support of claims against a company and its officers and directors.
While some courts have protected these reports from third-party disclosure, two recent federal court decisions have ordered disclosure—even when the company engaged the cyber consultants with the express purpose of assisting counsel with providing legal advice to the company. These decisions are thus an important reminder that companies should not assume that either the attorney-work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege will be held to apply to cyber incident reports.
Set forth below is an overview of the recent case law and some approaches companies might take to maximize the protection of cyber reports from third-party disclosure.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Crypto Guys Seem to Like Paul Atkins as a New SEC Commissioner, but Will He Be Good for the Securities Industry?
- 2Lawsuits, AI Accuracy and Debt: Legal Tech Companies that Ran Into Trouble in 2024
- 3Preemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
- 4Paxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
- 5Let’s Hear It One Last Time!: One More Bow for 2024’s Litigators of the Week
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250